The Turkish Flotilla Fiasco: Israel “Guilty Until Proven Guilty”
The Turkish Flotilla Fiasco: Israel “Guilty Until Proven Guilty”
By
Ken Eliasberg
The recent Israeli effort to prevent a Turkish vessel from running the blockade of Gaza has, as is now well known, ended in tragedy — a tragedy that will end, as do all Middle Eastern tragedies - with Israel being blamed for intemperate conduct. In this regard, it seems that any act of self defense on Israel’s part is intemperate. While it was alleged that the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, its refusal to lend itself to inspection, plus the obvious character and behavior of the political activists that greeted the Israeli commandos, make it abundantly clear that the purpose of this Turkish voyage was something quite over and beyond the desire to deliver humanitarian aid.
Perhaps a brief introductory reminder of the circumstances that prevail in Gaza is in order. Gaza is run by Hamas, a conceded terrorist organization, that assumed control over the territory after savagely brutalizing the other (not yet labeled terrorist) Palestinian organization contending for power, i.e. Fatah. Gaza has been an ongoing threat to Israeli security, lobbing thousands of rockets into Israel - aimed at civilian targets — before Israel’s effort to put a stop to it, i.e. Operation Cast Lead. Consequently, Israel wants to prevent Hamas from securing additional weaponry with which to continue its harassment of Israel’s citizens — ergo the blockade.
1. What’s a blockade? A permissible method of isolating or quarantining a territory in an effort to minimize the danger posed by that territory. We and our allies used it extensively during WWII. Kennedy used it effectively during the Cuban missile crisis. In short, blockades can be appropriate and are quite legal.
2. This particular blockade. Israel acted in accordance with the terms of the blockade. That is, it advised the flotilla that it would be in violation of the blockade if it proceeded; that it was to dock and submit to inspection. When the Turkish ships involved refused to honor the request to dock, one of their number was boarded by Israeli commandos.
3. What happened? The commandos were met by a group of what were clearly political activists who were violently aggressive in their response to the Israeli incursion. The Israeli commando’s weapons of first choice were guns firing paint balls. When this failed to secure the desired response, and the violence on the part of the passengers escalated, the commandos were armed with, and used, weapons of a more lethal nature. As a consequence of the confrontation, 4 commandos were wounded (by spears, bars, and a gun taken from a disarmed commando) and 9 of the belligerent passengers were killed. In short, the peaceful passengers (some of whom, it was subsequently determined, were agents of an organization with links to Al-Qaeda) initiated the violence that ended in 9 of them being killed (martyrs to the cause of delegitimizing Israel). The boat was then taken to port, searched, and was found to be weapon free.
Query? If the boats had nothing to hide, then why did they refuse to submit to a search? Clearly, for no other reason than to run the blockade, put Israel in a defensive position, giving Israel but 2 choices; (1) honor its blockade and do exactly what it did, or (2) dishonor its blockade and face the very real possibility that, if they allowed the blockade to be dishonored, future blockade running ships would most assuredly be carrying something a bit more lethal. Indeed, this was clearly a test case intended to either (1) break the blockade, or (2) better yet, to set the stage for demonizing Israel for its forceful action (action that the response of the passengers made absolutely necessary). And, of course, such demonizing reactions followed quickly on the heels of this event (I would be very surprised if such did not issue from the left-wing columnist of this publication).
As a consequence of the “flotilla fiasco,” as it is being called in some circles, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cancelled a scheduled meeting with Obama (an effort to allegedly treat Netanyahu somewhat more respectfully than he was treated on his last visit —when he was ushered in through a back door, treated rather brusquely (that is, in a manner not at all in keeping with that customarily accorded heads of state). Why? Because Obama was concerned that he might be losing some support in the Jewish community, a community that is only slightly less reliable in its support for the Democrat Party than the black community — 78% of the Jewish voters in 2008 cast their vote for Obama).
Netanyahu returned to Israel where he addressed the problem in a statement to the public in which he indicated that Israel’s conduct was appropriate and he stood behind it, notwithstanding the demands for an act of contrition on Israel’s part, issuing from the usual anti-Israeli suspects. In his statement, he pointed out that this was not a “love boat”; on the contrary, it was a hate boat, which, indeed, it was. He addressed all of the circumstances, gave the appropriate explanations, and concluded with this observation: Israel is guilty until it is proven guilty.” The observation is, unfortunately, correct, and it is an observation that applies to no other country in the world, no matter how inappropriate the actions of that country might be. Take for example, the outrageous conduct of the Sudanese government which, to this day, goes unaddressed. Israel, on the other hand, is always deemed to be in the wrong no matter what action it might take in its own defense. Query? What do you think the U.S. would do if Mexico was lobbing rockets in to San Diego?
The bottom line here is quite simple: The blockade is legal, appropriate, and necessary; that Turkey intentionally — with malevolent purpose — chose to run the blockade; and, as a consequence, blame should be heaped upon Turkey and not on Israel. But I assure you that that’s not the way it’s going to go down.
Why Turkey, one might ask? Good question. Ralph Peters, a solid authority, who I respect, opined that Turkey was trying to move itself into a position of greater authority in the Islamist hierarchy, the goal of which is a world-wide caliphate. And Turkey, who is currently being taken over by its Islamist factions, would like to see itself at the center of this caliphate, as it was during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. There may be some truth to this charge, but I cannot provide assurances on the subject. What it is safe to say is that this endeavor was an effort to put Israel in an embarrassing position and thus lay the groundwork for further isolating Israel in the arena of world opinion.